Kindle e-books now available to borrow from 11,000 US libraries

Kindle and Kindle app users can now borrow Amazon's e-books from more than 11, …

Amazon has finally announced its long-anticipated Kindle lending library, allowing Kindle and Kindle app users to borrow Amazon's e-books from thousands of libraries across the US. Users will be able to find the Kindle books on their participating public library's website and check them out through Amazon, which will send the book directly to users' devices over Whispersync.

"Libraries are a critical part of our communities and we're excited to be making Kindle books available at more than 11,000 local libraries around the country," Amazon's Kindle director Jay Marine said in a statement. "We're even doing a little extra here—normally, making margin notes in library books is a big no-no. But we're fixing this by extending our Whispersync technology to library books, so your notes, highlights and bookmarks are always backed up and available the next time you check out the book or if you decide to buy the book."

The ability to make notes and highlights—and subsequently sync them back to the system for review later—is certainly a major plus. The downside, of course, is that the e-books have to be "returned" after a certain period of time, just like any other library book. Amazon doesn't specify on its site how long the books are borrow-able for, but when asked, Amazon spokesperson Kinley Campbell said that the expiration time varies by library and by the book.

Seven to 14 days isn't a lot of time to read an entire book for some people, but it's hard to argue with free, borrowed books. Our only complaint with this announcement is that there seems to be no comprehensive list of the 11,000 participating libraries—even Amazon's FAQ page about public library books remains vague on this question. The requirement is that the library offers e-books via third party service OverDrive, though, so it's safe to assume that most major libraries will be participating to some degree or another. (You Chicagoans out there get to be lazy, as I've already confirmed that Kindle books can be found via the CPL website).

Edit: Removed links to Amazon due to technical (CMS) problems on our end. See comments for proper links for now.

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

79 Reader Comments

Someone asked about whether libraries have to re-purchase licenses for Kindle books. The answer seems to be no, but that doesn't mean that there aren't substantial costs associated with this. Kansas libraries won't be offering any OverDrive books -- no matter the format -- come December, because licensing fees have skyrocketed.

<blockquote>The proposed new contract included:

substantial subscription charges to individual libraries in the consortium;

a 700% increase from 2010 to 2013 for the Digital Library Reserve Server Application Service (platform) fee; and

removal of language (11.4) that acknowledged consortium ownership of material. Removal of this language also eliminated the opportunity to transfer the materials (purchased by the consortium) to a different vendor.

The State Library was unable to negotiate favorable terms with Overdrive and so the State Library began to look for other options through which we might deliver audio and ebook content toKansaspatrons. On August 5, SLK received “notice of nonrenewal” from Overdrive. The statewide contract will end Dec. 5, 2011.</blockquote>

It's pretty clear at this point that the whole "If it's available for free nobody will pay! Civilization will crumble! Authors will die of exposure in the streets!" line of though is a complete fallacy. Piracy (the content for free) is ubiquitous and has been for decades. It's trivial to strip ebook DRM and share it around. Yet, people still buy books, People who read ebooks buy more books. Authors like Corey Doctorow and T.A. Pratt release their book for free when it goes to stores, and they sell just as many or more copies. Authors are launching Kickstarter projects to replace advances, and having people put down way more money than they would make if someone bought the book normally. Free copies don't hurt author's income, they help it.

It's one thing for an established author to get a title off the ground by giving away some freebies. It's another for a new author to try the same.

In publishing, sales of books is E V E R Y T H I N G. It is NOT the same as recording artists selling tickets to concerts as a large part of their revenue in addition to music sales. Yeah, I know you didn't make this particular point. But that's a common argument in support of free recorded music downloads ("piracy" if you will)and how that hasn't led to musicians dying of starvation.

A lot of libraries around this way were apparently offering this sort of thing for a while - entirely on the honor system to delete after X days.

Probably not on the "Honor System". My local library system uses OverDrive (haven't checked to see if they're also participating in this for Kindle). The eBooks I get from them are ePub files protected by Adobe DRM which expires after either 7 or 14 days. After the "lending period", the files are no longer functional.

Edit: the Pinellas Public Library Cooperative still lists only Adobe ePub/PDF options in their OverDrive catalog. Doesn't matter much to me, personally, as I use a Sony Reader, not a Kindle.

I wasn't sure anyone would bring up what Xavin did, and I agree with him. My first thoughts on reading the headline echo his - the whole thing just seems so stupid to me. A quote by Eben Moglen:

Quote:

"If I can provide to everyone all goods of intellectual value or beauty, for the same price that I can provide the first copy of those works to anyone, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone from anything? If you could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf and pressing a button, what would be the moral case for charging more for bread than some people could afford to pay?"

The distribution of information has evolved. The way the businesses surrounding it have "evolved" seems more like "make new things work like the old things," which allows them to suppress change as much as possible, or at least control it. Makes me feel like when bread can be produced at the press of a button, it will still cost $1.89 for a decent loaf.

I wasn't sure anyone would bring up what Xavin did, and I agree with him. My first thoughts on reading the headline echo his - the whole thing just seems so stupid to me. A quote by Eben Moglen:

Quote:

"If I can provide to everyone all goods of intellectual value or beauty, for the same price that I can provide the first copy of those works to anyone, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone from anything? If you could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf and pressing a button, what would be the moral case for charging more for bread than some people could afford to pay?"

If I could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf of bread and pressing a button, I would . . . but in the instance of a novel, the cost of "baking" that one loaf of bread may be 4,000 labor hours.

In publishing, sales of books is E V E R Y T H I N G. It is NOT the same as recording artists selling tickets to concerts as a large part of their revenue in addition to music sales. Yeah, I know you didn't make this particular point. But that's a common argument in support of free recorded music downloads ("piracy" if you will)and how that hasn't led to musicians dying of starvation.

Except that the ever increasing numbers of successful self-published authors proves otherwise. They give away books and stories, sell them for prices that make the traditional publishers shit their pants (99c, $2.99, etc), and do all kinds of things that seem "dangerous" and "foolish" to the traditional establishment. The number one enemy of any creative artist is obscurity. If you can find an audience (by any method), then they will be willing to pay you to create stuff.

If I could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf of bread and pressing a button, I would . . . but in the instance of a novel, the cost of "baking" that one loaf of bread may be 4,000 labor hours.

But out of everyone on earth, at least a few thousand people will probably send you some money in appreciation if it's a particularly great loaf of bread. The rest, well, you have the knowledge that a lot of them enjoyed the bread that you made. If it's really good bread, you can probably convince people to pay in advance for the next one, or even commission special loaves of bread to their specific tastes.

Just because publishing for the last 100 years has used a certain model, it doesn't mean that is the only model that works. Patronage worked for thousands of years, and the internet makes distributed patronage from everyone - not just rich people - possible. We are entering a golden age for authors and creators of all kinds. In twenty years we will look back on all of this and laugh at the silly backwards thinking people, just like we look back and laugh at the small-minded movie studios who insisted the VCR would kill movies, instead of make them truckloads of cash, like it actually did.

Even assuming there's very many more than that, especially if we're talking about authors who start out self-publishing, rather than famous authors who later trade in on their success by going it alone, I don't think it's arguable that (successful) self-publishing is taking off in any statistically significant way, or proving to be a common alternative to a more traditional route.

Probably one of the most famous recent examples, Amanda Hocking (whose books kind of suck, btw -- that's the cost of not having an editor) just recently sold the rights to her first trilogy, to a major publishing house. Why? Because she didn't have very much reach, without them.

Doctorow is a popular example, but let's be honest: Most people haven't ever heard of him, let alone read one of his books, and those who have probably know of him because he pretty much dedicates a large portion of his time to evangelizing for free. I consider him an evangelist/author and for those who just want to be authors without having to be there own full-time marketing agency as well, it's really not quite that simple.

In music, Radiohead was able to do it because they're Radiohead. There's a reason they did it AFTER they got famous, though. They'd be a one or two album band if they'd have tried it with Pablo Honey. J.K. Rowling is able to do it because she's more popular than God.

On top of all that, it works now, because it's novel. Forgive the pun. Amanda Hocking is a good story: "Young goth author (gauthor?) strikes gold." As soon as there are 50 Amanda Hockings? 10,000?

As one of the co-founders of Lendle, I fully agree that there's a very good argument to be made that sharing books is a great marketing tool, and that it CAN lead to sales. We've got plenty of evidence showing that it does.

On the other hand, I don't think it's the utopian concept that some people want it to be, nor do I think it's something that can work for everyone, in every situation, nor do I think that it's something that is becoming all that commonly capable of paying the bills for struggling authors.

What really needs to happen is someone who is forward thinking enough to come up with an idea that isn't tied down to old models but which also doesn't swing too far in the other direction. There's money to be made, publishers still have a role, and someone just needs to champion innovation.

Ah, there we go. Tampa Bay Library Consortium now has Kindle versions available for a lot of them. Seems to be an issue getting Kindle versions with ebooks only available in PDF format for now, but Overdrive & Amazon say they're working to overcome that. Basically they're just making the currently licensed books available in an additional format, as far as I can tell.

So that covers Heartland Library Cooperative, Hernandy County Public Library, Hillsborough County Public Library Cooperative, New Port Richey Public Library, Pasco County Public Library System, State College of Florida Libraries and St. Petersburg College patrons.

I happily await your glorious utopia of content creation where those who toil over works of art or science are happy to turn the fruits of their years of effort over to anyone who wants, free of charge, in hopes that a enough will be willing to pay for the joy or knowledge these works have provided.

I wasn't sure anyone would bring up what Xavin did, and I agree with him. My first thoughts on reading the headline echo his - the whole thing just seems so stupid to me. A quote by Eben Moglen:

Quote:

"If I can provide to everyone all goods of intellectual value or beauty, for the same price that I can provide the first copy of those works to anyone, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone from anything? If you could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf and pressing a button, what would be the moral case for charging more for bread than some people could afford to pay?"

If I could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf of bread and pressing a button, I would . . . but in the instance of a novel, the cost of "baking" that one loaf of bread may be 4,000 labor hours.

I contend that one person's work over a two-year period feeding an unlimited number of people is a good thing. The most immediate objection to the product of that 4000 hours being shared for free is usually "The guy who made it won't get paid." I think that's a legitimate concern, but not because the guy who made it is entitled to build a corporation and retire, but that he should be able to make a good living, just like everyone else should be able to do. So, if that objection is posed, it should be with that attitude of "Why isn't it possible that someone can make something like that, allow free sharing and still make a living." If they can, then I think most other objections are indefensible. If they can't, then priority one should be to change things so that they can. Perhaps if there were more people who were willing to do the same thing with their labor, the goods and services the bread man needs to survive would also be free, or very cheap.

I guess I feel most objections to free sharing of information fall along the same lines, and that, if there are markets where people can still make a living, I think that, at the very least, all the lawsuits and DRM schemes are without merit. If those markets don't truly exist yet, I don't think the answer is to lock down an entity so free of restrictions so that it conforms to old, familiar ways of doing things.

A lot of libraries around this way were apparently offering this sort of thing for a while - entirely on the honor system to delete after X days.

Probably not on the "Honor System". My local library system uses OverDrive (haven't checked to see if they're also participating in this for Kindle). The eBooks I get from them are ePub files protected by Adobe DRM which expires after either 7 or 14 days. After the "lending period", the files are no longer functional.

Edit: the Pinellas Public Library Cooperative still lists only Adobe ePub/PDF options in their OverDrive catalog. Doesn't matter much to me, personally, as I use a Sony Reader, not a Kindle.

By "this sort of thing" I meant "lending eBooks out in an organized fashion amongst a consortium of libraries that purchased 'copies' in bulk." There were no DRM on them whatsoever.

On the other hand, I don't think it's the utopian concept that some people want it to be, nor do I think it's something that can work for everyone, in every situation, nor do I think that it's something that is becoming all that commonly capable of paying the bills for struggling authors.

Well, becoming an author that can pay the bills with writing in the traditional system effectively requires winning the lottery three times, finding an agent that will represent you, finding a publisher that will put your books out (and push it hard), and finding readers and fans. Most authors, even published authors, aren't paying the bills with writing.

The average book advance is around $3000 dollars and the books never earn out (no royalties). OTOH, you only need to sell about 1500 books at $2.99 self-publishing to make $3000. Guess which is easier to accomplish and more likely to happen? Raise the price to $4.99 (still in most people's impulse buy range) and you only need to sell 860 books to make $3000. So assuming authors can find less than 2000 readers, they can do better for themselves than traditional publishing in all likelyhood. Self-publish more books and you start getting people buying all your books, and it builds from there. If you give away copies to anyone who will take one, chances are some of them will buy, or tell their friends who will buy, or buy your next book, etc. Obscurity is the enemy, whether you are fighting it trying to get an agent or selling directly to readers.

Sure there will be a ton of people who don't make much money in self-publishing, but there are a ton of traditionally published authors who don't make much money now. Becoming a successful and full-time writer will still require skill and a lot of luck, no matter what the path.

>>Well, becoming an author that can pay the bills with writing in the traditional system effectively requires winning the lottery three times, finding an agent that will represent you, finding a publisher that will put your books out (and push it hard), and finding readers and fans. Most authors, even published authors, aren't paying the bills with writing.

That's certainly undeniable.

I'll change "paying the bills" to "finding almost any level of measurable success" because it probably fits my points better.

Also, as an aside, are you using markdown formatting for your block quotes? I don't see any formatting options when I comment...

Interesting, I only recently started using a nook for some of my books and reference material. I doubt B&N will do any sort of library thing but will be curious to see how well it works for amazon.

The Nook has full compatibility with epub, and that's been the typical library used format. So actually Amazon is the late player to the game, those of us with readers that support epub have been able to do this for a long time.

I'll change "paying the bills" to "finding almost any level of measurable success" because it probably fits my points better.

Well, that's certainly true at the moment, but as self-publishing takes off and the traditional publishers die or evolve, the current markers of "success" are going to need to change too. Last year you were still a wannabe hack if you self-published, this year you might be legit if a little distasteful, and in a few years as more published authors jump ship the stigma should go away completely (for most people at least).

Quote:

Also, as an aside, are you using markdown formatting for your block quotes? I don't see any formatting options when I comment...

It's UBB code, the commenting system on the front page is a facade over a phpBB back end. here is a link to the thread in the forums proper, and the "post reply" button will get you to an input box with the formatting options.

I think this is fabulous because it's a systemic upgrade to many libraries' ebooks selection. 7 years ago in Cleveland there was a growing and well-done selection of Adobe Reader locked-down ebooks. Read several new books that way (Olympos and other new books). Then I moved to a new city, and while they had an ebook link, it was shitty (no browsing titles except unfiltered and one page at a time, poor search, mostly non copyrighted stuff). I periodically checked in but had given up until today.

I don't know, but I'd guess that the extra sturdy bound "library" editions of books cost a bit more, and perhaps the new library ebooks are the same. While a library pays more for a title, it's prolly comparable to their usual cost, yet more available to patrons and requires less labor. Win win? Winning?

Except, I wonder if the lack of potential overdue fees will hurt some strapped libraries? My library now markets a prepaid fine card, but since it's not electronic (they need to punch it with a paper punch), why the F bother. Still gotta stand in line to punch or buy the card. As sad as it is, my newest local library is put to shame by Cleveland's offerings.

Xavin is right. The only people that need these traditional models are the publishers. Publishers don't write books, they just sell them. They rely entirely on being able to stand in the middle, taking a cut of the action, and being the gatekeeper to the content. What you need to realize, is that they're just an usher at the gate in a fence that's only knee high.

The idea of libraries lending e-books is just absurd. Libraries are necessary to store and administer physical books. Their supply of books is finite so when a book is lent out, nobody else can borrow it and they have to return it at some point so someone else can borrow it. E-books transcend this limitation. They don't need to be "returned" because it's just text in a file. Everybody could have a copy without depleting the library's supply of books. So why "loan" when they could just give away free copies? This whole program fails at applying physical goods concepts to intangible abstracts.

The entire issue of "how will authors make money when people can get their books for free?" has been addressed before. Authors have many revenue streams they can exploit aside from those that Xavin mentioned. For example, access to the author via live readings or book seminars. Personalized hard copies can be sold for a premium. Access to the author would be a huge angle to exploit for fans of a particular author. What rabid fan of Rowling wouldn't love to have a live online chat with her? I bet they'd pay for it too. Of course, this would be a perk of already being a popular author, but it shows that even the stars of writing can dump their publishers too.

Yeah. I don't get this comment. If you don't want to borrow eBooks, don't. If you're saying that other people shouldn't take advantage of this model, which, yes, is based on the physical book model, and the traditional library model, then I don't get it. I've used this, I think it's great. I can grab a book for free, read it, or don't read it, and I don't have to travel to the library either to pick it up, or to return it. I also buy a lot of eBooks. Some I borrow, some I buy, some, I borrow, *then* I buy. Authors and publishers are familiar with the business model around libraries. Most authors think that libraries do a great service to them, encouraging reading, etc. Actually, they're kind of like drug dealers, when you think about it. You borrow a lot from the library when you're young, but once you're hooked, you tend to buy more... :-)

You explained why libraries (and therefore letting people read books for free) are good, but you entirely missed my point. The idea of a library (a local organization that collects books to lend them out) is completely unnecessary for ebooks, it makes no sense anymore. You should be able to just download free copies from the author, or Amazon, or wherever. Libraries provide a lot of infrastructure and administration necessary when you are shuffling around paper, but they are superfluous when dealing with ebooks. Putting a system like this into place is just unnecessarily propping up the outdated modes of thought about content.

Effectively, they are the same. The end result of both is people reading books for free, with no money going to the author or publisher (libraries do buy the books, but those numbers aren't large enough to matter compared to consumer sales). It's either good for people to be able to read books for free, or it's not. We currently have this cognitive dissonance where the vast majority of authors are enthusiastically pro-library (probably because they have seen the benefits firsthand, as a reader and as an author), and rabidly anti-piracy/free books (because of FUD and an instinctual "they are stealing my book!").

As more and more success stories come out from authors not afraid to give away their stuff, people will see that the new way of things isn't that scary, and it isn't going to put good authors out of business, but help them instead.

Right now I can see some EPUB books in my local system that have a waiting list, so I believe there's a finite number of copies that can be "checked out" at a given moment.

That's the stupidity of it. If someone "borrows" a copy of an ebook, the library isn't short a copy; it's pure data, you can't deplete information. They can still technically loan out the "book" (It's more like a text file really. A book is made of paper and has a binding) to more people, they merely have to make copies for other "borrower's" e-readers. This is just publisher stupidity trying to turn an infinite thing into a finite thing through legal mandates.

It's outmoded to think that you can prevent freely copying it, or that you should. If nothing else the practical realities of the internet mean that we need to stop thinking that copying can be restricted or controlled, because it just can't. If that means to you that it has lost it's "value", then I guess it has.

In reality, it just means that the traditional toll-taker and gatekeeper has been removed. Things haven't even really changed all that much, because for the last few generations we have had publicly funded libraries so people who couldn't or wouldn't pay the toll-taker could still read books. Nobody who has wanted to read a book has ever had to pay. People universally agree that has been a good thing, even going so far as to say it's one of the most important cornerstones of western society and Democracy. Works still have value to society, and value to the author, and people still want to pay authors for good work.

As the old system crumbles and the new one grows, some people will get run over, others will be wildly successful that wouldn't have been before. When the transition is done though, the big corporations taking a cut will be different (no more bix six, hello Amazon, Google, B&N), but the authors, copyeditors, editors, cover artists, and marketers will still be able to sell their skills, even if who's sending the checks has changed. For authors who can manage things, they will almost certainly be better off, since they will be the ones in charge instead of the publishers (like any other small business). For the ones that needed to be babysat and hand-held, they will either find someone to do that for a cut or find a job better suited to them.

The idea that the existence of free public libraries indicates that allowing people free access to books is vastly overdrawn. Libraries are regarded as a Good Thing by society, publishers, and authors because they strike a balance between a consumer-focused system where everything is free to everyone and a producer-focused system where everything costs money. The nature of libraries introduces an incentive for people to buy books that is real and easily discerned: want a copy of the latest James Patterson novel the day it comes out? You'd better buy it, because the library copies (if they're there on release day) will go out quickly and you'll end up sitting on a waiting list for three weeks before you can read it. Want to keep that copy of Gray's Anatomy around so that you can reference it whenever you like? Buy it, because otherwise you're at the mercy of the availability of the library's copy, not to mention the fact that you have to GO there.

I'm not advocating for hobbling technology for the sake of sustaining a business model. I'm not even necessarily saying that making the books more freely available is not a Good Thing for the publishers (it's easy to see that it's a Good Thing for consumers), just that the only non-anecdotal example being used to champion this idea is not exactly the standard-bearer that it's being made out to be.

An earlier post said this:

Quote:

I think that's a legitimate concern, but not because the guy who made it is entitled to build a corporation and retire, but that he should be able to make a good living, just like everyone else should be able to do.

The producer of the content gets to define what they're "entitled to" (the word "entitlement" here is, I feel, misleading, as the colloquial definition of entitlement seems to be shifting toward unearned rights). You're entitled to your money. The author is entitled to his work. If he feels that a certain price is reasonable for sharing his work with you and you agree, then he gets some of your money and you get to enjoy his work. This is how commerce works. You don't get to say that a producer is only entitled to a certain amount of money before they get "cut off". As a society, we've already decided that they only get a certain amount of time (copyright duration) to be able to control their work, but during that time they can ask whatever you want, and if you don't want to pay it you don't get to read it.

Libraries are regarded as a Good Thing by society, publishers, and authors because they strike a balance between a consumer-focused system where everything is free to everyone and a producer-focused system where everything costs money.

That happened entirely by chance, I'm certain that publishers were up in arms over public libraries when they started going up, just like they have been against every significant technological advancement and change that has affected them over the years.

Quote:

I'm not advocating for hobbling technology for the sake of sustaining a business model. I'm not even necessarily saying that making the books more freely available is not a Good Thing for the publishers (it's easy to see that it's a Good Thing for consumers), just that the only non-anecdotal example being used to champion this idea is not exactly the standard-bearer that it's being made out to be.

Well, assuming you believe that if everything is free, people will stop paying (that's the fear), how do you reconcile that people have been freely pirating every book, game, and piece of software for the last fifteen years (yes there was a book pirate scene in the 90s before music and video, when the average person thought pirates only sailed on boats), yet sales in everything have just continued to climb? It's stupidly easy to pirate nowadays, yet people are still buying Kindle books like crazy.

Quote:

The author is entitled to his work. If he feels that a certain price is reasonable for sharing his work with you and you agree, then he gets some of your money and you get to enjoy his work. This is how commerce works.

No, that's how transactions of physical goods work. The model doesn't transfer well to information, which can be copied freely. I'm sure there were nobility who protested the beginnings of capitalism with the same kinds of arguments, claiming that everything would fall apart without feudalism. They were right to a certain degree, the old system fell apart, but a new, better one took its place.

That happened entirely by chance, I'm certain that publishers were up in arms over public libraries when they started going up, just like they have been against every significant technological advancement and change that has affected them over the years.

While what you propose is certainly possible, I'd rather go on information rather than guesses. That being said, what I put forth is why they're in favor of them now, which is why the analogy between libraries and free copying of books is spurious.

Xavin wrote:

Well, assuming you believe that if everything is free, people will stop paying (that's the fear), how do you reconcile that people have been freely pirating every book, game, and piece of software for the last fifteen years (yes there was a book pirate scene in the 90s before music and video, when the average person thought pirates only sailed on boats), yet sales in everything have just continued to climb? It's stupidly easy to pirate nowadays, yet people are still buying Kindle books like crazy.

The key word here is pirating. No matter how easy it is, most people have some sense that what they're doing is "wrong", or at least isn't how they're supposed to get the work. If you remove that element from it, then very few people will have any incentive to pay for something when they need not have any conscience issues with getting it for free.

Xavin wrote:

No, that's how transactions of physical goods work. The model doesn't transfer well to information, which can be copied freely. I'm sure there were nobility who protested the beginnings of capitalism with the same kinds of arguments, claiming that everything would fall apart without feudalism. They were right to a certain degree, the old system fell apart, but a new, better one took its place.

There is no difference in how a transaction dealing with physical goods vs. intellectual "goods" works in terms of compensation. The major difference is the ease of distribution and the fact that virtually all of the "cost" of the work is in one-time development, rather than in continued manufacturing. It's still my property, and I get to say what you have to give up if you want it. You don't have a right to what I produce any more than I have a right to what you produce.

The key word here is pirating. No matter how easy it is, most people have some sense that what they're doing is "wrong", or at least isn't how they're supposed to get the work. If you remove that element from it, then very few people will have any incentive to pay for something when they need not have any conscience issues with getting it for free.

That's provably not true. Baen has been giving away the full backlists of their biggest authors for a decade now, and only report boosts in the sales of those same books whenever they release a new CD. There are also the studies that show younger people who have grown up with ubiquitous file sharing don't look at piracy as wrong. How do you explain the kickstarter projects where people give way more money than the price of a book? People who have any self control and patience at all have always been able to read books for free, either by using the library or borrowing from friends. People will support what they like. Who pays how much may shift, but that's irrelevant as long as the creators get enough money to keep on creating (which is not very much in an absolute sense when you look at what most authors end up with now).

Quote:

It's still my property, and I get to say what you have to give up if you want it. You don't have a right to what I produce any more than I have a right to what you produce.

Regardless of your moral stance on it, reality disagrees. You have no control over information once you publish it. If you put it out there, people will copy it freely and do whatever they want with it. It's time to stop whining being hostile about that and learn how you can make it work for you. Welcome to the internet age.

... Baen has been giving away the full backlists of their biggest authors for a decade now, and only report boosts in the sales of those same books whenever they release a new CD. There are also the studies that show younger people who have grown up with ubiquitous file sharing don't look at piracy as wrong.

"Right" and "wrong" are determined, at some level, by society. What you describe is that younger people who've grown up during a time where breaking the law in this particular way is easy and largely without consequence view it as acceptable. That's an easy stance to take when the "victim" of your infraction is faceless and there is almost no chance of any personal consequence to your actions. That doesn't make the effects any less real.

Note that I'm not a copyright hound here. I don't think that piracy has nearly the effect (if anything practical at all) that the producer say that it has, but it's chiefly because it's a moral gray area (desensitized youth notwithstanding, of course). If it becomes morally acceptable, then that changes the game entirely.

Xavin wrote:

How do you explain the kickstarter projects where people give way more money than the price of a book?

At the risk of sounding flippant, I write that off as novelty. Such events are few enough and far enough between that people see them as novel and worth encouraging. If everybody (or even a great many authors) did this, then I think you'd quickly see a decrease in the relative response.

Xavin wrote:

People who have any self control and patience at all have always been able to read books for free, either by using the library or borrowing from friends. People will support what they like.

And, like I said before, it's the requirement of patience (and loss-of-use that comes from borrowing) that makes it work. Those without it tend to foot the bill for those that have it, and I think they all know it. If I want a book when it comes out, I probably have to buy it because my chances of getting it from the library are slim, and my friend is probably going to want to read it for himself before he lends it to me. If I want my own copy of a book, I have to buy it myself because either the library or my friend is probably going to want theirs back.

Xavin wrote:

Who pays how much may shift, but that's irrelevant as long as the creators get enough money to keep on creating (which is not very much in an absolute sense when you look at what most authors end up with now).

"Shift" implies a lateral movement, as if you're moving from 1000 people paying $20 to 100 people paying $200. What you're describing is moving to 100 people paying $2.99, then 10000 more people paying nothing when they copy it from their friends. You may want to look here:

Regardless of your moral stance on it, reality disagrees. You have no control over information once you publish it. If you put it out there, people will copy it freely and do whatever they want with it. It's time to stop whining being hostile about that and learn how you can make it work for you. Welcome to the internet age.

Reality says that if enough people want the stuff in my living room, then chances are they can overpower me and take it. That doesn't mean that we should move to a society where it's OK to take stuff away from me. The fact that these are physical vs. content items is a red herring; I'm interested in enjoying the use of my television (but I may be willing to let you watch it for a fee), and theft prevents me from doing that. Likewise, I'm interested in enjoying the content that I produce, but I might be willing to let you enjoy it too for a fee. Whether you take away my TV or my ability to control how my content is used, you're still taking away something that belongs to me.

No, that's the key that changes everything. Distribution is now free. Copying is not theft, because copying doesn't take away your copy. There is a zero chance of getting caught being a pirate (as opposed to a high chance of getting caught if I steal your TV). The rules have changed. Even if society agreed that free copying was bad (it doesn't, the majority have used P2P software), there would be no way to stop or even curtail it. The content producers have been trying for twenty years and accomplished nothing more than some of them realizing all that money they spend on trying to prevent copying is flushed down the toilet.

There's no indication that the Tragedy of the Commons applies to creative works. Even if it does, then we will just have to get used to it, because it's impossible to control the spread of bits once they are in the wild.

"Right" and "wrong" are determined, at some level, by society. What you describe is that younger people who've grown up during a time where breaking the law in this particular way is easy and largely without consequence view it as acceptable. That's an easy stance to take when the "victim" of your infraction is faceless and there is almost no chance of any personal consequence to your actions. That doesn't make the effects any less real.

It is a fallacy to assume there is a "victim" faceless or not. Non-commercial filesharing is generally amoral (morally neutral) as benefit can be gained without there being harm or a "victim". It is impossible to lose something that you never had and no property is being stolen.

Quote:

Note that I'm not a copyright hound here. I don't think that piracy has nearly the effect (if anything practical at all) that the producer say that it has, but it's chiefly because it's a moral gray area (desensitized youth notwithstanding, of course). If it becomes morally acceptable, then that changes the game entirely.

I think society may largely already be there as filesharing and copying has existed since at least the days of the "Xerox machine", the floppy drive, the cassette recorder and the VCR. I don't think anyone has any moral qualms with using a DVR and skipping the commercials, buying used, borrowing and using the library.

Even before this people have always enjoyed content for free: radio, TV (in the 80s it was common for networks to air blockbuster films after there theatrical and/or VHS run), local newspapers and magazines, shareware games and now Google makes Billions by giving away apps, a search service, and a mobile OS for FREE.

On the other side of the coin: many would argue that artificial scarcity can be seen as immoral.

Xavin wrote:

People who have any self control and patience at all have always been able to read books for free, either by using the library or borrowing from friends. People will support what they like.

ARobinson wrote:

And, like I said before, it's the requirement of patience (and loss-of-use that comes from borrowing) that makes it work. Those without it tend to foot the bill for those that have it, and I think they all know it. If I want a book when it comes out, I probably have to buy it because my chances of getting it from the library are slim, and my friend is probably going to want to read it for himself before he lends it to me. If I want my own copy of a book, I have to buy it myself because either the library or my friend is probably going to want theirs back.

Even at the library there are some that don't even have to exercise patience and being able to setup and manage your Holds online makes it dead easy. Most of us don't really have that problem though as the vast majority of content is a disposable commodity and there is way more than we have time for. It is the real gems that actually continue to be good even long after the initial "watercooler moments".

Xavin wrote:

Who pays how much may shift, but that's irrelevant as long as the creators get enough money to keep on creating (which is not very much in an absolute sense when you look at what most authors end up with now).

ARobinson wrote:

"Shift" implies a lateral movement, as if you're moving from 1000 people paying $20 to 100 people paying $200. What you're describing is moving to 100 people paying $2.99, then 10000 more people paying nothing when they copy it from their friends. You may want to look here:

Why couldn't it be 100,000 people paying 5 cents per chapter before it is finished? Or Pepsi paying $50,000 for sponsorship?

Except "Tragedy of the commons" has been largely debunked and only applies to scarce, rivalrous resources not information.

Xavin wrote:

Regardless of your moral stance on it, reality disagrees. You have no control over information once you publish it. If you put it out there, people will copy it freely and do whatever they want with it. It's time to stop whining being hostile about that and learn how you can make it work for you. Welcome to the internet age.

ARobinson wrote:

Reality says that if enough people want the stuff in my living room, then chances are they can overpower me and take it. That doesn't mean that we should move to a society where it's OK to take stuff away from me. The fact that these are physical vs. content items is a red herring; I'm interested in enjoying the use of my television (but I may be willing to let you watch it for a fee), and theft prevents me from doing that. Likewise, I'm interested in enjoying the content that I produce, but I might be willing to let you enjoy it too for a fee. Whether you take away my TV or my ability to control how my content is used, you're still taking away something that belongs to me.

The author/artist's dilemma is that control and utility are inversely proportional to each other. A work is largely meaningless with complete control and no audience but can only find a wide audience by losing control. The greatest danger to an artist and a work is not piracy it is obscurity.

Taking stuff away from you harms you and makes you the victim as you are deprived of your property but abundant "things" like information simply can't be compared to physical, scarce, rivalrous objects (TV, car or otherwise) because there is no analog.

Ha ha and ha. They SAY they have a boatload of books, but damned if I can find the ones I'm looking for. Also, the fact that Amazon will not allow Canadians access to this? Yeah, thanks for absolutely nothing, Amazon.